Running out of bounds and returning

[deecee]

This rule is completely clear. I have yet to come across an NCAA official or assignor that has talked more than 30 seconds on this topic and anyone being confused.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by youngump

The rule is not clear and no one would come up with the interpretation that the NCAA uses unless someone told them it was that. That said the interpretation is very clear and first to touch means next. They should change the rule.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Rule has always been clear to me. I don't even know if I've ever read the case play.

Originally Posted by deecee

This rule is completely clear. I have yet to come across an NCAA official or assignor that has talked more than 30 seconds on this topic and anyone being confused.

But would you at least concede that the meaning of the rule is the next to touch the ball, therefore would be better written if it simply used the word "Next" instead of "First?" Does this minor wording issue require the rule to be changed? No, but if there is a better way to do things, then why not?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by frezer11

But would you at least concede that the meaning of the rule is the next to touch the ball, therefore would be better written if it simply used the word "Next" instead of "First?" Does this minor wording issue require the rule to be changed? No, but if there is a better way to do things, then why not?

Then someone will claim that if A1 is dribbling and continues to dribble after A2 returns, that A1 is the "next" to touch the ball.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by frezer11

But would you at least concede that the meaning of the rule is the next to touch the ball, therefore would be better written if it simply used the word "Next" instead of "First?" Does this minor wording issue require the rule to be changed? No, but if there is a better way to do things, then why not?

You are over complicating a very simple rule that hasn't confused any college official that I have come across. First - Next, all semantics that, as Bob pointed out doesn't change what the intent is. If a player has possession of the ball inbounds and a teammate runs OOB to go around a screen that TEAMMATE cannot be the recipient of a pass by the initial player with the ball. That's it. nothing more. nothing less.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by deecee

You are over complicating a very simple rule that hasn't confused any college official that I have come across. First - Next, all semantics that, as Bob pointed out doesn't change what the intent is. If a player has possession of the ball inbounds and a teammate runs OOB to go around a screen that TEAMMATE cannot be the recipient of a pass by the initial player with the ball. That's it. nothing more. nothing less.

You're exactly right, so why not word it that way?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by frezer11

You're exactly right, so why not word it that way?

I hope you are asking that rhetorically.

[Camron Rust]

Yes, this rule is badly worded. It should say something else. But what else? Either of the suggested wordings create bad interpretation opportunities.

Perhaps it should say "next to receive a pass".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, this rule is badly worded. It should say something else. But what else? Either of the suggested wordings create bad interpretation opportunities.

Perhaps it should say "next to receive a pass".

but if the ball is just loose and the returning player touches it -- it wasn't a "pass" but it's still a violation.

[deecee]

I learned, not to long ago, to agree with Bob and that he's rarely wrong (anyone have proof otherwise?).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

but if the ball is just loose and the returning player touches it -- it wasn't a "pass" but it's still a violation.

Isn't it the pass they are trying to make illegal? Is a player ever getting an advantage by going OOB and happening to come back in where there is a loose ball with no one else around? Likely in a corner.

The play most often seen is when that player run OOB to get free and pops back inbounds in the corner to receive a pass while undefended for an open shot.

[bob jenkins]

I agree the pass is the play most often seen.

I believe both are illegal (assuming the player is OOB of his / her own volition)